RANI Vs. RAKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dtd. 17/11/2018passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No.199/18 titled "Rani v. Rakesh", and order dtd. 8/8/2018 passed by the learned CMM (East), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.55393/16 titled "Rani v. Rakesh".

(2.) Brief facts of the present case, as disclosed in the petition, are that the petitioner and respondent were married as per Hindu rites and customs in the year 1998, however, on 28/5/2014, the petitioner had filed a Complaint under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the respondent had committed offence under Sec. 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC') by marrying once again during the lifetime of the petitioner. Learned CMM vide order dtd. 31/5/2014 had taken cognizance under Sec. 494 IPC and the petitioner had also led pre-summoning evidence. On 30/3/2015, CW Teena had been examined as a witness in pre-summoning evidence led by the petitioner, and vide order dtd. 4/7/2015, the Court had summoned the respondent. Thereafter on 11/1/2016, the petitioner had got examined in chief in pre-charge evidence, and the cross-examination had been deferred at the request of the respondent and the matter had been adjourned to 5/3/2016. As stated, between 5/3/2016-16/4/2018, the matter was adjourned from time to time and in this period, on nine dates of hearing, the petitioner was present, and was ready for cross-examination on six dates of hearing, but could not be cross-examined due to some reason or another. On 8/8/2018, the learned CMM (East) Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi, had passed an order closing the pre-charge evidence in the absence of petitioner and discharging the accused/respondent. The relevant portion of order dtd. 8/8/2018 reads as under:

(3.) Thereafter, on 28/8/2018, the petitioner had preferred Criminal Revision No. 199/18 before the learned District and Sessions Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi seeking setting aside of order dtd. 8/8/2018 passed by the learned CMM. By virtue of order dtd. 17/11/2018, the learned Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East, Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi had dismissed the said revision petition on the ground that the petition was not maintainable. The relevant portion of order dtd. 17/11/2018 reads as under: